The old evolution vs. creation (intelligent design?) debate

[packsaddle 753]

Adrianvs, you had one statement that caught my eye, "Why couldn't science teachers (who may or may not have creationist training) teach the subject?"

 

The answer I offer is, because creationism isn't science.

 

I do support your idea of including the subject in a humanities course that examines a broad range of views in a comparative manner. Such a course was one I took AT A PUBLIC INSITUTION and it was really interesting in that it offered many ideas I had never before considered.

[acco40 95]

At the age of 40, you are told by your mother's doctor that she has been diagnosed with the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. You have two options.

 

One, put her in a treatment facility where 100% of the doctors are throughly educated in the areas of Bible scholarship, the power of prayer, and creationism. The standard treatment is to petition the Lord with prayer.

 

Two, put her in a treatment facility where 100% of the doctors are throughly educated in genetics and gene mutation. There standard treatment is utilizing experimental gene therapy.

 

Both facilities utilize current up to date drug treatments. What do you choose for your mother?

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, I think you might enjoy the following:

 

Brush, S.G. 1974. The Prayer Test. American Scientist 62:561-563.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

My understanding of what "creationism" is, is the belief that the "creation account" in the Book of Genesis is literally true. This belief (again, as I understand it) not only includes the creation of mankind directly by God with any "intermediate" species, but also the belief that the Earth is only several thousand years old (because the "six days" are multipled by a passage somewhere that says "a day is like a thousand years.")

 

To me, as far as a public school goes, this belongs in a study of comparative religion, which I my neck of the woods would probably be part of a "World Cultures" or "World Civilizations" class in a high school. (I am pretty sure it is a required class in all New Jersey schools.) It does not belong in science class, because it is not science. It's really not a theory. You can't gather "evidence" one way or another. Take away the Book of Genesis and you have nothing. (The same would apply to the "creation beliefs" of any other religion.)

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory and belongs being taught in science class. There is a lot of evidence for it. There are also theories for how evolution happens -- most notably "natural selection" -- for which there is less actual evidence. There is also considerable, if not uncontrovertable, scientific evidence that the Earth is much, much older than several thousand years -- in fact billions of years old -- and that some species (like dinosaurs) have been extinct for many millions of years.

 

The fact that it is difficult to "prove" theories about things that have been going on for millions of years, or that happened millions or billions of years ago, does not mean that these theories are not "science" -- nor that explanations based solely on a religious book are science.

[Adrianvs 10]

I agree that creationism shouldn't be a primary focus of science teachers (not that all science teachers will spend a significant amount of time on evolutionary theory anyhow). I just meant that in so far as an economics teacher will touch on government, a philosophy teacher will touch on psychology, an English teacher will touch on religion, and about any teacher will touch on science, a science teacher may present some creationist views. I don't think that this is important, however, and I wouldn't vote to spend money on creationist training for such teachers. On the other hand, I don't think it would be innappropriate to touch on the subject prior to or during discourse in evolutionary theory.

 

I also think that it would be helpful for students to be exposed to the philosophical basis for our scientific method some time during their scientific education. Whether this should be delivered within science courses, I am not sure. I would like to see philosophy offered in secondary schools so that students can see the rise of empiricism and the scientific method "from the other side" so to speak. It would work well for this to be explored within the philosophy or other humanities classes. Much more time could be devoted to the subject than the average science teacher would be willing and/or able to devote.

 

Regarding the philosophical bases for the scientific method, I think we need to keep some things in mind. Those who accept the scientific method and wish to keep it "pure" (as I do) needn't be strict empiricists regarding all knowledge. Using science as a specific tool within specific realms of study, one may also accept other forms or methods of knowledge. Creationists, for instance, use empirical science as one of at least two methods of knowledge, another being Divine Revelation, usually in the form of Scripture. Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with most creationist specifics, but I assume that most would hold this true. Another subject is that of materialism. While materialism is certainly compatable with the scientific method and many scientists have been materialists, we must remember that materialism is not a necessary base for the method or empiricism as a whole. In fact, it was historically dualists who can be credited with the rise of modern science and later the scientific method. Spiritualists rarely consider the physical world worthy of study, but they don't usually enter into the debate. They would consider the Laws of Thermodynamics as absurd and mythological as a materialist considers the spiritual realm...

[evmori 11]

pack,

Way to dodge the question!

 

 

[Adrianvs 10]

"One, put her in a treatment facility where 100% of the doctors are throughly educated in the areas of Bible scholarship, the power of prayer, and creationism. The standard treatment is to petition the Lord with prayer."

 

 

While I am not familiar with the specifics of creationism, I do know that creationists do not distain medical science, technology, or any other application thereof. I had mentioned distorted and simple views of religions and you are a perfect case of this. I have personally met creationist biologists and medical doctors. Yes, some very rare religious sects distain all or some medical procedures. The "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Christian Scientists" come to mind. They do not represent the vast majority of those involved in creationist study or the denominations which support it.

 

Your statements about Christians and Christianity demonstrate either a gross ignorance of the teaching and practice or a malicious distortion and use of mocking hyperbole. There are civil means to debate issues or even the merits of a particular ideology, but I believe that "bigotry" is the term that one might use to describe your demeanor. I'm sure that you wouldn't stand for such techiques being used to describe another religious or ethnic group. If it is merely a case of gross ignorance, I suggest that you either start some serious study of the topics that you wish to discuss or preface your descriptions with a notice that you have no little idea what you are talking about.

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, I admit that I don't know that there is a correct answer to Acco40's question. But I did detect in his question an interest in the citation I gave. It may have dodged the question but I thought it would add to the topic of his interest.

[evmori 11]

acco wasn't asking for the correct answer & he never infered there was one! He wanted to know what YOU would do! I would go with the 1st option. How about YOU?

[acco40 95]

In my "question" I did not state that the doctors in choice #1 were luddites; I specifically stated that they used current up to date drug treatments.

 

I'm not quite sure where Adrianvs gets the notion about "mocking" or my ignorance of Christianity, but I do not prefer to be called a bigot. My only point is that in the preference of caretakers to choose doctors who have been schooled in creationism or evolution. Yes, they could be schooled in both but given a finite amount of "study time" where would one prefer their doctor spend his limited resource (time) studying?

 

 

[Sturgen 10]

Evolution is a theory supported by many known pieces of evidence. It is generally believed that it is not a fact. The underlying goal is to search for truth using a method of science.

 

You seem to imply that evolutionary theory is believed to be incorrect by the masses? Did you just happen to skip every science class known to man? Or perhaps you simply wouldnt dare associate with those sinners who believe in evolution? It really must be a lonely life for you. I do suppose that hundreds of years of exact scientific study all over the world ought to be ignored because a single book says so. We have seen species evolve, we have fossil records, whether God directly caused these changes in the animal kingdom or simply started the chain of events, is up to interpretation. Either way, life in the modern era was determined by life millions of years ago, its a simple, proven, scientific fact. Geology and Physics have proven Earth to be somewhere in the realm of 4.6 billion years old. Bishop Ussher (1645) decided using the Bible that Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at approx 9 am GMT. Call me a cynic, call me an atheist if it makes you feel better, but I always have, and always will put my scientific faith in hundreds of the smartest individuals on earth and radiometric dating, before I take the word of one man and one book.

 

As to acco40s question, I would gladly choose science, my grandmother, a Christian Scientist believed in the power of prayer, ignoring even the most conventional treatments, and almost died of cancer before we moved her into a "scientific" hospital, within a matter of weeks she was up and about, almost as good as new.

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Sturgen,

 

I apologize for my lack of knowledge, please forgive me but I will continue to post in spite of it.

 

Your belief in modern science is based on well founded knowledge. As you, I believe in well founded knowledge but not exclusively. The basis to that scientific knowledge is statistical analysis aligned with probabilities. So, in spite of the mountains of evidence it will always remain the Evolutionary Theory.

 

It is the Creationists that defer to facts and to knowing ultimate knowledge. It is an "argumentum ad captandum" and a Teleological search for truth. In other words, a poor method played to the crowds to prove the existence of God and to make a battle where none exists.

 

Argumentation/Creationism will never prove that God exists, in spite of the facts or reduce the fears of those inclined to doubt. This is because it will always remain an issue of faith in a God with attributes that excels all earthly measures.

 

FB

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, if either answer is neither correct nor incorrect then I don't understand why the question was asked in the first place. However, if there is some importance given to the choice a person makes (which is why, I assume, the question was asked), then someone must think they know the correct answer. I suppose I could be wrong.

 

But I'll give it a try anyway. As I understand the question, all other factors being equal, the only difference between the two situations is that alternative one adds prayer or some other spiritual factor. Alternative two adds gene therapy or some similar technology. One flaw that dims my view of this hypothetical situation is that both alternatives employ methods based in scientific research (the conventional drug treatment). The choice, then, must assume that the conventional treatments have failed (which they ultimately do in real life). But the two alternatives cannot be considered completely independent if they share a common treatment component. A clearer choice that would satisfy the question would be for alternative one to offer only a faith-based treatment and for alternative two to offer only technology-based treatment.

 

Another problem is that the hypothetical situation involves a medical problem that can only be proven through an autopsy. Because there are so many potential ways for dementia to occur, and because the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease is inexact, it is a poor choice for this hypothetical.

 

Also, if anyone can name a single Alzheimer's patient that has ever recovered to good health, I would like to hear it. In the hypothetical question then, both alternatives are likely to have the same tragic result. But I suppose, perhaps, the question is one of probability: which alternative is more likely to benefit the patient? Given the inevitable outcome the choices might be viewed as equal but my money would be on technology to delay further development of dementia.

 

But to address the question as stated, I seriously doubt that ANY care giver would require a choice between those two alternatives, but would more likely offer both. In my view it is an unlikely and unrealistic situation.

 

If I was the patient, my choice would be number two. Shortly after diagnosis, I would also do the legal stuff to give my wife the responsibility to make such choice when I am unable.

 

If my mother was unable to make the choice herself, and if I was empowered to make the choice for her, I would again choose alternative two.

 

However, even with alternative two I would engage clergy of her faith as well as the technology named in the alternative. Here's why: Unless she had already expressed a wish to limit treatment, I would assume she would desire every available measure. I need no other rationale than my love and respect for her to decide to engage elements of her faith as well.

 

But regardless of my choice, from my observations, the outcome will be tragic.

[firstpusk 10]

I read the article from the Post-Dispatch. acco40, I wouldn't feel to bad about this attempt in Missouri. Similar efforts have been made in many states. They lost trying to ban evolution. They lost on creation science and equal time. They have lost all the way to the US Supreme Court - more than once. They now come out with intelligent design a negative argument that could mean space aliens or any supernatural power you want to pick created the world and all the life on it. Don't ask when or how, they won't be pinned down. If they tell you what they actually believe, they have to make a positive argument which they cannot and never will be able to support.

 

Make no mistake, this is a religious movement using political power to confuse students about what actually is and is not science.

[le Voyageur 72]

 

My post was more tounge in cheek...however, these are very dangerous times for the family.

More and more, parents are becoming spectators, being pushed aside while Educators, Politicians, and Theocrats decide nearly from the moment of birth of every child as to what, and what will not fill the minds of their future minons.

 

On reflection, I remember an odd definition of Scriptures being considered as the sacred books of one's holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based. Guess this now applies to not only the books of science, but any other topic the theocrats feel ordain to revise...